Yes it will be your own, but if you are correct or not will be decided by the scientific method, not by opinion. And I think this 20 page thread should influence theists enough to realize there is no valid evidence for god or religion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Looking for arguments for the existence of God
- Thread starter Rorschach
- Start date
Yes it will be your own, but if you are correct or not will be decided by the scientific method, not by opinion. And I think this 20 page thread should influence theists enough to realize there is no valid evidence for god or religion.
farfignewton
the man!
Sir, I am in awe of your faith. It is much greater than my own.
To have faith in a system created by the same mankind that wars with itself over money, greed, religion, or simply to boost an economy, takes a great leap of logic.
You see, you belive that the scientific method is with out flaw. You belive that in its entirty it is flawless, though created by the same flawed minds that thought the A-bomb was a good idea. If you open your mind to this, which I doubt you will, the scientific method is not able to be proved to work. It is a theory on how truth can be reached, and the only way to test it, according to your own proclaimed faith, would be to run the scientific method on the scientific method. So, your faith proves itself based alone on the merit of somebody else telling you thats how it should be done. Try to prove to me that your method of findind faith in the things around you is any greater than my own, and I will applaude you.
I know that you, as well as many others are getting self rightious and indignant at this blantet attack on what you hold deer, but know that I am only turning your hand in kind. Prove to me that a method invented not 200 years ago outweights a faith of over six thousand. Find insubstantual evidance that your method is greater than mine, with no room for argument or question, and I will consete my point.
Remember, evolution, science, God, Christ, Time, life, hell, even gravity, are all theories. You have mearly choosen a diffrent one than me. We take what evidance we get, and turn it into what we like. It is our choice.
Sorry, edit, had something else I wanted to say.
You say that there is no valid reason to belive in God or religion. Then you need to take off your blinders and take a better look at the world. Your words are bitter, trying only to disprove others thoughts and opinions in an effort of self disilutioned gratification. Instead of trying to disprove what I belive, try to prove what you belive. Be as ready to defend it in your own words, not those of somebody else, as most christians and muslims and hindus and buddhists are. Find your own faith, or lack there of, prove it. Then you will have a right to criticize what others hold deer to them.
(please dont take this as anger, my words come out harsh, but I do realy like the debate, as long as it remains inteligent.)
astarath
Well-Known Member
A scientist can write an article 1000000 pages long and it will still result in nothing. There are those of us who have a real relationship with God that is beyond what science can understand and explain...faith! (insert snipe at theist here) That was a good one! Anywho either science will one day find God or God will find the scientists either way I enjoy the proverbial "rat race"
farfignewton
the man!
This is true, and it is not.
Faith with out evidence is meaningless. Blind faith is embrasing ignorance like a lost lover. We were given logical minds with the ability to reason by god, and it would be a waste of what he created to not use it. Yes, there is a god. Yes Jesus walked the earth, and died for our sins. But to belive this only beacuse you are told is foolish. To ask somone else, namely those who have dedicated their lives to the logical is what makes atheists call us fanatics. Remember, we have this life to live. We have this one chance to make our mark on the world, and go to the next. To say that Darwin, who wrote far less than a million words, has had almost as big an influence on this planet as christ has had. Words can amount to more than you can imigian. Do not discredit them beacuse they come from some other belief system.
REmember, this is your fellow christian telling you this. Dont oversimplify our god, and dont try to make it seem obvious to those who arent looking.
astarath
Well-Known Member
Who said without evidence! For someone to experience a personal relationship with an entity it would have to exist no? Blind faith is fleeting and falls to a 20 page essay from some scientist. A real life experience of God, Christ and the Spirit is truly unshakable even when facing a formidable servant of Satan like ...duhduhduh SCIENCE!!! (uh oh I dropped the proverbial glove) Run!
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
This has become a fairly common phrase now.
I could argue the same thing about religion...
astarath
Well-Known Member
This has become a fairly common phrase now
You could say the same about some religion but not all!
lunamoth
Will to love
Uh guys? Science and God are not an either-or proposition. There are many scientists who are theists. And the scientific method is not 'flawed." It has its limitations, but it's still the best we've got for gaining knowledge about our physical universe. And no scientist is ever going to say that the scientfic knowlege and theories are 'without flaw' because that's not how science goes about advancing our knowledge. It is constantly testing for the weak and flawed ideas and pushing them to be more accurate and useful.
Unless you have a very literalist view about creation and mistake the myth for scientific explanation, there is no conflict between science and faith. Science does not set out to disprove God and even atheists do not need science to assert their position that there is not God.
And religion, or Christianity, is not anti-knowledge or anti-intellect. We are not supposed to turn off our minds or turn away from reason or the insights brought from science. To be a "fool" for Christ does not mean to be credulous or deny intellectual knowledge. It means to accept some things, some very specific things, about why we are Christians and why we have hope, in spite of a world that looks quite contrary to the Kingdom of God.
Unless you have a very literalist view about creation and mistake the myth for scientific explanation, there is no conflict between science and faith. Science does not set out to disprove God and even atheists do not need science to assert their position that there is not God.
And religion, or Christianity, is not anti-knowledge or anti-intellect. We are not supposed to turn off our minds or turn away from reason or the insights brought from science. To be a "fool" for Christ does not mean to be credulous or deny intellectual knowledge. It means to accept some things, some very specific things, about why we are Christians and why we have hope, in spite of a world that looks quite contrary to the Kingdom of God.
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
Really? I can't think of a single one.
astarath
Well-Known Member
We are taught however that the knowledge of this world will profit us nothing but rather knowledge of God is our sight! Science searching for God is the same thing as searching for God in the Bible. Both are looking just in different places! Like I said science will find God or God will find science the rat race continues.
lunamoth
Will to love
The knowledge of the world, however, is not referring to scientific knowledge, but 'worldly knowledge.' The knowledge of God is love, peace, justice, hope, forgiveness, compassion, and "the last shall be first and the first last." Worldly knowledge is might makes right, and the first shall be first.
Science does not search for God, although many of us who have had the priviledge of looking deeper into the scientific view of the world experience amazement and awe and wonder, a very religious experience. Frankly, my closest experience of the 'fear of God' comes from my insights into the workings of the cell.
Either you do not know what the scientific method is or you are pretending that you do not know what it is. The reason why the scientific method is flawless is because it takes into account that it is not flawless. The only flawless ingredient to the scientific method is the human aspect. Accusing the scientific method of being flawed because it was created by humans is equivalent to claiming 1 + 1 = 2 is wrong because it was created by humans. The scientific method is a fact of nature that was discovered and is used by humans. To this day I have never heard of a religion that praised those who question it, and on that note I have never heard of a religion that praises intelligence either.
And a side note: You should look up the definition of faith, because it is also clear that you do not realize that everything I believe in can be measured. Where any supernatural belief you have can not be. With obvious exceptions; there is no way for me to know other then faith if a girl has feelings for me or not ( although there is evidence but that can be misinterpreted)
It is sad that I have to explain the difference to you but I feel obligated. The word theory in a scientific context is equivalent to the layman's term fact. Thus it is the fact of evolution and the fact of gravity. Where as there is no evidence for God, the supernatural idea of Christ, and Hell. They are what would be called hypothesizes.
I don't have faith at least in the supernatural religious sense. I do not need to prove that I see evidence and accept something as true. Unfortunately, you have to prove what you believe is true for it to be anything other than irrational especially when it is in the realm of supernatural.
Ignorant statement made from someone suffering from the delusion that criticizing is a privilege, and respect for others beliefs is a good idea. If you are confused here is a link to help you out.
astarath
Well-Known Member
Sounds like you 2 should get a nice cozy PM and let it loose!
farfignewton
the man!
You misunderstand me. Regardless of why we say something is true, the only verification we can have towards that end is our own, limited perspective. We have always believed that 1+1=2, but we have no way to prove that outside of what we know. We can merely speculate that it is true, because we have good evidence leading up to that conclusion. There is perhaps, another way of looking at things, outside of our human perspective, that would lead to a different answer than 1+1=2, but we have yet to encounter it. Truth, unfortunately, varies person to person, and is solely based on our perspective, and the opinions contained there in. Im not saying that these things are wrong, merely that we have no way to prove with out a question of a doubt that they are correct.
Thats is an unfairly bias statement. First off, I would kindly ask you to explain how the scientific method is a fact of nature, as I have never heard this before. (this is not taunting, just curiosity) But to say that "religions" as a whole have never praised those who question it, or to say religions dont praise intelligence is an ignorant statement, meant as a jab towards religions. I enjoy the points you make, and it would seem this debate could lead to information for both of us, but please, lets keep it intelligent. No need for mud slinging.
In a response, however, knowledge and intelligence is almost a mandate for most religions, just not the knowledge you hold dear. I believe it takes a great deal of intelligence to translate a book into a language that has not previously had a written language. It also takes a great deal of knowledge to be able to quote the bible, Torah, Qu`ran, etc. cover to cover. Just because the intelligence is not of the variety you hold deer does not mean its not there.
Thank you for that link. Its good to know the definition of a word I use allot. And with that definition, I stand by my words. You have faith that the people you have learned from did their work by the rules you hold dear. Who is to say that the *making a huge assumption here, but please bear with me* Scientists who have studied evolution, *assuming thats the theory you believe* followed the method to the same degree that you would? Where is the proof of the people that say the world is billions of years old did their work correctly? This is what I mean when I speak of you having faith in your own doctrine. You trust these people to do what they said they did. I do not doubt you believe that everything you trust in can be measured, but until you do the work yourself, you will never be sure; you will only have others explanations to go off of.
*this is the point where I find out you are a genetic theorist or something*
Again, there is that condescending tone. Please, I like your points, but could you kindly act as though your talking to another human being?
Now, evolution. Theres a touchy subject, neh?
I think I should avoid this one, on the basis of keeping my keyboard from beginning to smoke... Perhaps a PM session would be good for this one. Your saying that there is no measurable substance by which to measure god, Christ, hell, or any aspect of religion. I disagree, but science would argue that emotions, feelings of elation, good deeds, are a mater of personal choice, rather than divine intervention, but who is to say. When priests molest children and convicted rapists and murders donate to orphanages, it would seem immeasurable. I cant help but wonder, however, if there is some measure of serotonin, or any enzymes or endorphins that release on a more frequent basis for those that have a faith, and live by it.
Oh, and the facts you speak of, Evolution, Gravity, etc. They have a substantial amount of evidence towards them, *more gravity than evolution* But the questions are still there. It is not a fact, even Darwin himself said so on his death bed. If it were a fact, scientists would not be researching it still. IT would be decided. the truth of the matter is that it is a very sound theory, with evidence both for and against it. There are holes in it, as there are in most religions. Hell, the odds alone are staggering. But you already know that.
Ok, next point, before I get to far into it.
Ah, there you are mistaken my friend. Evolutionists and Atheists try harder than anyone to "prove" their beliefs. How many billions of dollars are spent each year researching evolution, cro-magnum man, dinosaurs, etc? I would guarantee that it is more than is spent trying to prove the existence of god. As for those of us with a faith in the supernatural, we believe it. We know with out a doubt, based on the evidence that cannot be shared or measured. It comes from an experience that is impossible to explain unless seen, much like seeing a relative die, or your buddy getting blown away by an IED. To discount these things as false because they cannot be measured by science is closing your mind to something that is very real.
This is the part where I get off my soap box of what Ive seen in Iraq, and proof that there is a God by the fact that I am still alive, but Im sure you dont want to hear it, so I deleted it.
Keep to the subject at hand, right? This link proves to me that you have very little independent thought, only a fierce conviction to quote what you have been told. You read this page, and like the idea of being able to attack people. Yes, it is our right to be able to criticize, but to do so with our good reason or argument is foolish. I was merely trying to say that having a good debate does not need insulting or mudslinging. You talk with such bitter words, fierce in your convictions of what is correct, and I cant fault you for that, as I do the same. I commend you in your conviction, and would love to hear more of what you have to say; I am just asking that you remain as open-minded as you expect others to be.
Yes, true.
tomspug
Absorbant
This is a personal question, so I'll give a personal answer. I was raised in a Christian home (my parents joined the church a couple of years before I was born) so I've got a pretty good understanding of my faith. Unlike some people, I haven't been confronted with a situation where Christianity did not provide a proper answer. I have, however, had to mature in the process. Christianity is not simple because it deals with very difficult, other-worldly concepts that are not easily accepted.
I did not reject other religions on the simple basis that they disagreed with me, rather they were not sufficient in comparison to what I receive from a personal relationship with God. I mean, RELIGIONS attempt to explain God, but real Christianity properly defines him and what his relationship with the world is.
The reason I accept it is because I haven't been given a good reason to reject it. Hmm, probably someone who 'converted' to Christianity would be able to give a more helpful answer.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
No, it isn't.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
No, the question is epistemological - you simply answered it personally.
I suppose for you, your epistemology (how you know what you know - or more precisely - how you think you know what you think you know) is based on some kind of mystical religious personal experience as opposed to a controlled experience like a science experiment or philosophical model.